I was going by this extract from the OP:
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. Pity that a news note such as the one in the OP would not include remarks on the deeper research you assert is behind the new pre-schools. (Did all of the preschools like that one just open last year?) So that I may better understand your perspective, can you recommend, link, synopsize even, any 1) applicable curriculum research that might bring me up to date; and, if it isn't any trouble, 2) a description, explanation, any details really about what all these pre-schools look like and sound like. There might be anecdotes or even data available about how things are proceeding there.

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. I feel I need to stand by my opinion that gender neutrality doesn't discourage gender exploration and, in fact, encourages it. I believe it allows an individual the freedom to examine all aspects of gender and make the personal decision about how they choose to present themselves. Re-examination of oneself over time may or may not lead to different presentations, all of which should be acceptable.

I think we are trying to say the same thing with different terms. personally, I don't support "equality" as, to me, that denotes preclassification in groups which are then judged to be equal to one another.

"Elephant"'s nice....

Tapu,

Sorry to say, that yes, the article is not correct, and the author must not know very much about Sweden. Everything in writing is not true, it seems like, sorry to be disapointing you.

Would be interresting to have a discussion about the issue, I acctually spent my lunch break searching for material for the thread. I just don't understand why you would write in such a demining way, or why you feel all this irony is needed.

/Cane

Oh, Cane, I'm sorry--I don't want to be demeaning! I'm sorry that I haven't taken more care in self-monitoring. I admit that irony is a feature of my argumentation style, but even it need not degenerate into personal affront.

Earlier in this thread, I called someone on their condescension toward me, and now I appreciate you calling me on my own breach of manners. Most of my rhetorical training was developed in the field of Linguistics. We linguists can be real assholes sometimes! >;-)

It has frustrated me that much discussion is about how great an idea it is to have a gender-neutral classroom; yet, I can't get out of anyone in real terms what it is, what its goal is, what the projections are, why it's desirable, and so on. I appreciate that you are making efforts toward supplementing the meager information on the OP so that a real discussion can ensue.

Again, I acknowledge the lack of respect in my earlier posting and apologize unconditionally.

I have to admit, I read the description and imagined it, and I have to state that I am pleased with my idea of what it is. You're right, I don't know exactly what it is like in reality.

Andy, at this point, even an imagined vision of it would help me. What do you think about it? Any part.

Oh! And I will mind my manners. Swear. >:-) --tap

This has been the major flaw in the many "experiments" like this through the years. Yes, reinscribe, not neutralize and equality.

Although I have had many times in life in which my gender presentation as female has met with negative consequences, I have always internally enjoyed and even felt much flexibility concerning my gender presentation.

I feel very similarly, ALH! Thank you for sharing this. :)

You're so smart and concise, Heart ! :bowdown:

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

I read an article on eliminating "gender-biased language and behavior" in the classroom. I'm thinking it may fall into a subset of modifications to "old" classroom practices that are possibly summed up in these lines from the OP:

To even things out[??], many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

So it may be a correlate to whatever the full picture of classroom practices and philosophy is behind this new Swedish pre-school. Regardless, the type of coaching that teachers might receive from these "gender pedagogues"* would be along the lines of addressing both sexes an equal amount and with the same affect and encouragement in all subject areas. For example, the point was made in the gender-biased lang + behavior article that teachers promote participation and elaboration in boys in math, and in girls in ELA, by their language and behavior.)

That's probably enough said about that, but I'll try to clarify if you find it garbled. The theory and practices, only outllined above, are at the level of elaboration that I look for before I can say "Great idea."

*
I called it first! I want that job.

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

Yeah but Andy, don't you figure we'll have to build up to that?


Also, I don't know how invested you are in the science of evolution, but you'd need its cooperation or at least its acquiescence at some point.

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

The girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand and the boy building and knocking down block towers are free to do so, according to the main article. The point of it all is to create a "gender neutral space" that consists of a merging of the two spectrums...the kitchen is next to the block tower, the dolls are mingled in with the trucks and planes, the aprons and fire helmets are hanging together. There is no punctuation in terms of boy/girl themes. No finality or border between male and female, feminine and masculine. The grey area is their playground and these children are allowed the space and freedom to simply *be*. In my opinion there is nothing subtly coercive about that.

No, i'm not a fan of "building up to" anything just because the thought of it makes people uncomfortable. It wasn't so long ago that it was uncomfortable for men to entertain the notion that women were capable of making an informed decision and should have the right to vote.


I am very invested in evolution, and very interested to hear how you believe societal gendering of behaviors is related to it.

You are very welcome! You know, it would be very interesting to hear more about this from femmes. But, I guess that is for another thread. Some of this is expressed in femme threads- I take a look sometimes, but I wonder if this could be discussed in combination with butches and ranges of femmes and butches including transmen and women.

I know that this varied community has so many areas surrounded with negative experiences and self-perceptions (at times) surrounding our gender presentation that we all have to deal with- yet, I have found a fundamental freeing as part of this community in terms of gender as a butch woman. And learned so much from a more positive perspective via other identifications and gender presentaions.

Picard could say, "Make it so" but his underlings had to find a way to get there. That's more what I mean by "building up to it."

Men did not suddenly wake up, entertaining the notion that women were capable of an informed vote. Acceptance of gays and more obviously gay marriage has followed the same "build-up."

But besides the human factor behind a need for "build-up," we also need that development time to figure out HOW to do it. It's the recognition of that lets us move toward the ideals, and to refine them as necessary.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, oof, so much to explore! My first post in this thread brought it up but there didn't seem to be any general interest. If you want to discuss that perspective, we could try to do it here, or in another gender thread.

Cheers! tap

I do understand what you're saying, and yes there need to be individuals who figure out how to accomplish a common goal. As I'm sure you've seen, there are different ways to get things done. Nearly every committee or group I've been in has seemed to split fairly evenly into two loosely defined camps:

The ones who get it done right away and sometimes break some things in the process, and the ones who go slow and steady and don't break anything, but are sometimes forced to accept compromises that deter progress.

Clearly, i'm a hard-headed, liberal, jump in with both feet, raging feminist dyke, and I have no qualms about being loud and open about it. This approach doesn't work for everyone, and some individuals' personalities and skills are much better suited to slow maneuvering through the system as opposed to trying to smash it all. :)

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were "in your face" suffragists, and working in concert with them were hundreds of other women who moved behind the scenes, avoiding the public eye. I'm a firm believer that the two pronged approach is the way to go, and I think we can look at conquering gender the same way. I know that there are individuals posting in this thread that do not agree with my opinions or my approach, but to them I say: You need my fighting style just as much as I need yours.

I respect your desire to go slowly and make lasting changes, but from the current mental and physical treatment of differently gendered individuals in the world right now, I must insist that there be immediate action taken as well.


P.S. i'm totes down with jumping in on a discussion in an evolution in regard to gender thread. :)